[yt-dev] na => np in 3.0 and 2.x

[Anthony Scopatz]

PR #258 sent.

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Anthony Scopatz <scopatz at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Okay, looks like everybody's pretty much in favor.  Anthony, would it
>> be possible to run the script on the tip of the 2.x repository and
>> issue a PR for that?
>
>
> Yup, I'll do so within the next hour or so,
>
> Be Well
> Anthony
>
>
>>  And, do we want to merge to stable so that any
>> big bug fixes get applied there before doing so?
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Nearly everyone who has replied so far is on board with the third
>> > option, which is to apply the same change to both.  Anthony and Kacper
>> > also had a discussion in the PR about the cosmology routines, which
>> > seem to be (!!!) non-functional in some particular configurations of
>> > the universe.  I'll suggest that we wait until Wednesday, and if
>> > nobody objects by then, we accept this PR and then also a similar one
>> > for the dev branch.  I'd prefer we not apply these changes to the
>> > stable branch at this time.
>> >
>> > In IRC, Martin Geisler also pointed me at these StackOverflow
>> > questions which address merges and workflows like this:
>> >
>> > http://stackoverflow.com/a/9533927/110204
>> > http://stackoverflow.com/a/9500764/110204
>> >
>> > In short, by applying to both, we're going to be okay.  :)
>> >
>> > -Matt
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Anthony Scopatz <scopatz at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Hello All,
>> >>
>> >> Obviously, I am +1 for #3 and +0 on #2 (no need to create a maintenance
>> >> headache if you don't have to).  I originally did this in the 3.0 fork
>> just
>> >> because
>> >> I thought it was more of a sandbox than the 2.x series.  I am also +0
>> on #1,
>> >> if that is what is best.
>> >>
>> >> Be Well
>> >> Anthony
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Kacper Kowalik <
>> xarthisius.kk at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On 27.08.2012 16:08, Matthew Turk wrote:
>> >>> > Because this could be disruptive for any major, outstanding forks, I
>> >>> > also think it needs to be discussed here.  (I'm actually kind of -1
>> on
>> >>> > big discussions happening in pull requests.)  My vote is for #3.
>>  I'd
>> >>> > rather get this over with, since we all know it probably ought to
>> >>> > happen at some point in the future.
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>> there's a way to minimize the disruption on any outstanding forks,
>> >>> namely to automate the process. If we use the same "tool" on both main
>> >>> repo and the fork, the difference should be close to none.
>> >>> In this case something along the lines:
>> >>>
>> >>> find . -name "*.py" \
>> >>>    -exec sed -e "s/\([[:punct:]]\|[[:space:]]\)na\./\1np\./g" \
>> >>>    -e "s/numpy as na/numpy as np/g" -i {} \;
>> >>>
>> >>> should do the trick. I haven't check yet if that reproduces Anthony's
>> PR
>> >>> so use it carefully ;)
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>> Kacper
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> yt-dev mailing list
>> >>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> >>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> yt-dev mailing list
>> >> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>> >>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20120831/4bad116f/attachment.html>